Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

notes.alinpanaitiu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 364 posts

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#251

Post by jdlshore »

cesarvarela wrote: post #240
rickspencer3 wrote: post #209

What really galls me, and I know I have ranted about this here before, is that you can't even really load an app ON YOUR OWN PHONE without paying for a developer account, not to mention that I can't side load something someone else made. I get that iPhones are nifty and all, but I don't see how people can spend that money on a device that locks the owner out of basic functionally. Android is not perfect, but at least…

I have my entire life in my phone: bank accounts, private keys/passwords/2fa/crypto, pictures/videos of personal life moments, messages between family/friends/business, etc. I want the "thing" that holds all this to be as closed and reliable as possible. I know that I can just simply not side load, but the smallest attack surface the better.

Yes, exactly. I want a device that’s thoroughly locked down. For myself, and especially my parents and spouse, who I’ve taught never to access their bank accounts on the web, but only on their iPhones.

If I want a hackable pocket computer, I’ll buy a device specifically for that purpose. Or pay the rather minimal fee. (Edit: If needed.)

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#252

Post by geraneum »

rickspencer3 wrote: post #209

What really galls me, and I know I have ranted about this here before, is that you can't even really load an app ON YOUR OWN PHONE without paying for a developer account, not to mention that I can't side load something someone else made. I get that iPhones are nifty and all, but I don't see how people can spend that money on a device that locks the owner out of basic functionally. Android is not perfect, but at least…

That’s not basic functionality for everyone. I’m a developer. I have an iPhone which contains personal photos, bank apps, etc. (basic functionality) I have another device with Android which I can run my custom http server on, or i.e compile some code on the plane for fun.

I don’t want to worry about what the app that I side loaded last month is now doing with my photos or or if the phone is spying on me for an ad company.

I believe I have a good balance. A free for all on one hand and a locked down device on the other. I personally like this balance and don’t see a compelling reason as to why I should change anything.

P.S. I know the iPhone and the review process won’t eliminate the risks all together. It just needs to improve my chances which it does for me effectively.

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#253

Post by elvis10ten »

cesarvarela wrote: post #240
rickspencer3 wrote: post #209

What really galls me, and I know I have ranted about this here before, is that you can't even really load an app ON YOUR OWN PHONE without paying for a developer account, not to mention that I can't side load something someone else made. I get that iPhones are nifty and all, but I don't see how people can spend that money on a device that locks the owner out of basic functionally. Android is not perfect, but at least…

I have my entire life in my phone: bank accounts, private keys/passwords/2fa/crypto, pictures/videos of personal life moments, messages between family/friends/business, etc. I want the "thing" that holds all this to be as closed and reliable as possible. I know that I can just simply not side load, but the smallest attack surface the better.

1. There are OSes that are “open” and still reliable.

2. OP was talking about loading apps on his/her OWN phone. Apple could offer some “OS variant” or some settings for people like OP while the default is closed for people like you. This doesn’t seem mutually exclusive technically — it’s probably just not in apple business best interests.

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#254

Post by stavrus »

Is this a new requirement? I remember for Kubecon Seattle 2018 using an iOS app (named KubeCon+CNC) that was nothing more than a schedule viewer for the event. It didn't even use native views and given how narrow the audience for the app was -- attendees for one of two 3-day conferences -- I was surprised at the time that it even existed as an app and had made it past the app store review.

I also know of at least one app, a sanitary self-certification app that allows your entry into a European country by generating a QR code to display, that is also basically a shell around a simple web app with a form. It absolutely should be an app given how convenient it makes accessing the entry requirements and generated QR code, but its existence does make these app store requirements seem absolutely arbitrary.

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#255

Post by nullwarp »

geraneum wrote: post #252
rickspencer3 wrote: post #209

What really galls me, and I know I have ranted about this here before, is that you can't even really load an app ON YOUR OWN PHONE without paying for a developer account, not to mention that I can't side load something someone else made. I get that iPhones are nifty and all, but I don't see how people can spend that money on a device that locks the owner out of basic functionally. Android is not perfect, but at least…

That’s not basic functionality for everyone. I’m a developer. I have an iPhone which contains personal photos, bank apps, etc. (basic functionality) I have another device with Android which I can run my custom http server on, or i.e compile some code on the plane for fun. I don’t want to worry about what the app that I side loaded last month is now doing with my photos or or if the phone is spying on me for an ad com…

This comes up every time and I have such a hard time believing it's not some kind of weird bot response.

The entire line of reasoning makes no sense to me. You login to bank websites, store photos on computers, and those are not locked down.

Yes somehow, for some reason, your mobile devices needs it?

It makes no sense to me, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic. It just doesn't line up.

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#256

Post by ricardobeat »

Apocryphon wrote: post #217
Loeffelmann wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess airbnb shouldn't have an app

Or Uber, Lyft, Spotify, Netflix, food delivery sites, basically any website (according to the GP)

There is a pretty big difference in apps where you have an account and interact in real-time with service providers, notifications are a critical part of it, etc.

Browsing a list of events is nothing like it

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#257

Post by LeoPanthera »

lstamour wrote: post #241
HWR_14 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except what you just said isn't true. Yes, Apple charges for developer accounts that lets you publish to the AppStore or even privately. But you can get a free version that lets you push to devices locally. So if you want to distribute your app not in the store you can do so as long as you release the source so other people can build it on their free account.

Except with a free account (“ADP” according to Apple) there are limitations: https://help.apple.com/developer-account/#/dev21218dfd6 On top of that, apps installed this way expire after a number of days, possibly as few as 7 days? And there’s a limit to how many can be installed this way, might be as few as 5 apps.

But that's not what he said. He said you can't do it. You can.

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#259

Post by zaik »

dylan604 wrote: post #213
josephcsible wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there were no iDevices, the developers would make their apps for more open platforms instead. Don't pretend the apps just wouldn't exist at all.

Right, because the millions of people that have a mobile device as the one and only compute device would magically be buying a different type of computer?

They would be buying the same computer from a different manufacturer.

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#260

Post by dylan604 »

josephcsible wrote: post #242
dylan604 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because the millions of people that have a mobile device as the one and only compute device would magically be buying a different type of computer?

In what world can anyone afford an iDevice but not an Android device?

I read open platforms as not just Android. I was thinking more traditional compute vs mobile
Post reply on HN